01-11-2006, 04:21 PM
No doubt many of you are already familiar with Derek Williams' book 'Romans and Barbarians', published back in '98 - for anyone who hasn't seen it, I can recommend a look. Essentially, it's an examination of the various peoples of the northern frontier - Britons, Germans, Dacians, Sarmatians - and their encounters (usually military) with Rome. The campaigns in Britain, the Varus disaster, Trajan's Dacian war and the exile of the poet Ovid on the Black Sea (contending with Sarmatians raiders) are taken as examples, or 'episodes', to illustrate the various ways that Romans saw barbarians, and where possible vice-versa. His writing style is characterful and pacey (he's of the non-academic' school of historian!), bringing in a wide range of outside sources, and despite a few annoyances (referring to 'colonels' etc, and calling all Roman artillery 'guns') he presents his material accurately and informatively.
One of the most interesting sections of the book deals with Trajan's Column - a breakdown is given of the sequential scenes, and what they are presumed to refer to. William's hypothesis is that the spiralling frieze on the column might have been an enlarged copy of an original illustrated scroll, itself based on Trajan's account of the campaign and perhaps drawn by a military officer who had been in the field. The 'wrapped' effect of the column frieze certainly suggests it. This notion might explain some of the strange inconsistencies in the representation - on one hand very accurate and detailed depictions of Roman fieldworks, tents, entrenchments, on the other some very faulty impressions of armour, bridge-building and so on. The problems, Williams suggests, might have come with the artisans - probably Greek - hired to 'translate' the original illustrated scroll into a carved frieze, having in places to invent some details to fill gaps (how to place turfs in a rampart, for example - the column has them set sideways!) or interpret other details - the construction of lorica segmentata, for example - from what might have been rather vague original drawings. It's an interesting theory, and makes logical sense, although it still doesn't quite explain all the mysteries of the column.
For anyone interested in the army or Roman frontier policy in the 1st century AD, this is certainly a book worth looking into.
One of the most interesting sections of the book deals with Trajan's Column - a breakdown is given of the sequential scenes, and what they are presumed to refer to. William's hypothesis is that the spiralling frieze on the column might have been an enlarged copy of an original illustrated scroll, itself based on Trajan's account of the campaign and perhaps drawn by a military officer who had been in the field. The 'wrapped' effect of the column frieze certainly suggests it. This notion might explain some of the strange inconsistencies in the representation - on one hand very accurate and detailed depictions of Roman fieldworks, tents, entrenchments, on the other some very faulty impressions of armour, bridge-building and so on. The problems, Williams suggests, might have come with the artisans - probably Greek - hired to 'translate' the original illustrated scroll into a carved frieze, having in places to invent some details to fill gaps (how to place turfs in a rampart, for example - the column has them set sideways!) or interpret other details - the construction of lorica segmentata, for example - from what might have been rather vague original drawings. It's an interesting theory, and makes logical sense, although it still doesn't quite explain all the mysteries of the column.
For anyone interested in the army or Roman frontier policy in the 1st century AD, this is certainly a book worth looking into.
Nathan Ross
